Debates of June 14th, 2023

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me attempt to answer both questions with the same answer.

The member is right that Ken Dryden had a wonderful program. It was universal and all the provinces and territories were on side. That is why I say to please not trust the Conservatives on this because the first thing Stephen Harper did was he got rid of the program. It is unfortunate we were in a minority government at that time, but I will not comment on what happened with the NDP or the Bloc.

At the end of the day, this legislation would prevent a potential Conservative government 15 years from now from being able to decide in cabinet, without a thorough debate, to get rid of a fantastic program. Had it been put in place back when Ken Dryden brought it forward, we would be so much further ahead. One only needs to look at the province of Quebec and the impact it has had on its workforce. In particular, there are more women engaged, as a percentage, in the workforce.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, the YMCA was brought up. I have a letter here from Christine Pasmore, a day care provider, who talks about two YMCA after-school care locations that will be closing because of this bill. I thought I would tie that in.

The hon. member brought up trust. Tonight we have breaking news that the Prime Minister's Office also knew about Paul Bernardo's transfer three months ago and did not tell the families.

Housing prices have doubled. We have a cost of living crisis, and public safety is eroding rapidly, so how could we trust the Liberals with our children and child care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is because, when it comes to child care, there is only one party that has been in government that has demonstrated a genuine interest and is taking the initiative to put child care in place. There is also only one political party in this chamber that tore apart a national child care program.

When the member talks about trust, I would suggest no one can trust the Conservative Party. If anything, Stephen Harper is more of a centrist compared to the current leader of the Conservative Party because the current leader of the Conservative Party is so far right wing that everything could potentially be on the table. No doubt, it has to be the genesis as to why this legislation is so important and why I am hoping members of the Conservative Party will talk about it glowingly on Facebook. After all, they say they are going to be voting in favour of it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very strongly in favour of Bill C-35, but I think we had better not ignore the concerns that we are “Not Done Yet”. That is the title of a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, co-authored by economist David Macdonald and Canada's leading champion for early childhood education Martha Friendly.

We have child care deserts in this country. We have areas where children are not yet in kindergarten and parents have no hope of getting their child into a child care space because there is only 20% coverage for children in those communities. The worst in Canada is Saskatoon, then Kitchener, then Regina, then Vancouver. There is 24% space availability for the 100% of children who need a place.

Is the government open to reading this report, accepting its recommendations and working hard to provide the incentives and decent wages for early childhood educators to create the spaces for the children whose parents are going to benefit from $10-a-day child care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Green Party is supporting the legislation, which is a good thing, but the leader of the Green Party needs to recognize that there is jurisdictional responsibility. We have a national government that says it wants to ensure there is a child care program that is affordable and accessible across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, but we need to work with the provinces. The provinces, in many ways, are the ones who have to play the lead at the level the member is referencing.

We can all individually encourage our respective provincial governments to go even further in supporting the children of our country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to note I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

We know, and there is no doubt, that child care is an important conversation to be had. We know it is a conversation that parents are also having on a regular basis across this country. Child care needs can look different, not just from one region to another, but also from family to family.

Public policy and the development of a national program should respect and take into consideration those differences. It has been very disappointing that, throughout the deliberations of this bill, whether in the chamber or in committee, the approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition has been narrow and exclusionary. The Liberal government has sought to divide and disparage child care solutions outside of their own prescribed form. This is even more disappointing given many reports would suggest in some regions, such as Saskatchewan, most families do not have access to child care.

The demand for child care remains far greater than the available spaces. Child care providers, in all streams right across the country, have long wait-lists. Access remains a main concern when it comes to child care, but it is not solved by the existing agreements, nor is it resolved in Bill C-35.

We have heard accusations from members opposite that Conservatives have tried to obstruct this legislation. In reality, Conservatives have been working to elevate the voices of parents who are raising serious concerns with the government's child care program.

We have articulated those concerns from child care providers. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this, in any way, is hindering the delivery of the Liberals' program. The facts are that the child care agreements are already signed with the provinces, and the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care is already formed.

If anything, this should be an opportune time to examine the delivery of the program so that we can understand its shortcomings and take stock of its limitations and its potential reach. However, that was never the goal for the Liberal government. It put forward this legislation to pat itself on the back.

However, the bill, like many of the policies put forward by the Liberal-NDP government, creates winners and losers. The Liberals' self praise is an insult. It is an insult to the moms and the dads who are left out. They are left out in the cold and find themselves on the outside looking in with no spaces for their children in child care facilities.

Let me highlight some of the testimony and voices the government seems very eager to ignore. This includes voices of child care providers who find themselves excluded from the program and the Liberal government's vision for child care in Canada.

Amélie Lainé, representing indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, told the HUMA committee, “funding is only administered through indigenous political institutions, and it does not give service organizations like the indigenous friendship centres in Canada access to funds to develop early childhood and family services.”

Krystal Churcher from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs told the committee, “Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model.”

With wait-lists surging across the country, it is only logical that we use every tool at our disposal to meet the needs across this country from coast to coast to coast, and that we not purposely shut out child care providers who are providing quality care currently. In fact, in the study of this bill, the HUMA committee heard about how the exclusionary structure of the program could actually be to the detriment of the quality of care. We heard about a parent who felt that she now had to choose between the quality of care for her daughter and more affordable costs. It is a decision that she was faced with because her preferred care provider falls outside of the current agreements and would not be captured by the vision laid out in this bill.

The rollout of this program has not even provided much of a choice for many families and more often even less of a choice for lower-income families. We heard in committee that more often lower-income families that cannot afford child care costs are wait-listed because they do not have children enrolled. Excluding child care providers is in the exact opposite spirit of achieving accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all children.

To really tackle child care in Canada, our approach should be comprehensive. The passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-318, would support that goal. Allowing adoptive and intended parents equal access to EI leave to care for their new child would give those parents more time to bond with their child and more time to find a child care solution. It could also help to alleviate some pressure on the child care system. I would hope that, if not the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development would herself see the merits of her government's keeping its promise to these parents and offering the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

It is also clear that any hopes of making real progress toward accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all will require a labour force strategy. There is a clear crisis in the childhood educator workforce. There needs to be a plan to recruit and retain labour. The success of a national child care program will depend on this. We cannot flick a switch to create more spaces if there is not a workforce to handle it.

That is why it is particularly frustrating that the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected amendments put forward by Conservatives in committee to address these particular shortcomings. They rejected an amendment that would have explicitly directed the national advisory council to support the recruitment but also the retention of a well-qualified workforce. It would have given the council the mandate to track availability, wait-lists and the progress made in improving access, which is one of the pillars of this bill. It is not clear why the NDP-Liberal coalition would oppose this being a core function of the council. Similarly, the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected an amendment that would have explicitly required the minister to report annually on a national labour strategy.

The rejection of these amendments tells parents and those in the child care sector that the Liberals are not taking this workforce crisis seriously. It certainly does not give them confidence that the recruitment, education and retention of early childhood educators are a priority for them. Just as the recommitment to their exclusionary vision for child care does not give parents on wait-lists hope that universal access is within reach, the rejection of these amendments to include all types of child care providers in the program and to have a more fulsome representation at the table ensures that there will continue to be winners and losers. The reality is that there will be parents who receive no support and there will be qualified and quality child care providers who will continue to be vilified because of their business model by the NDP-Liberal government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, if someone were to come into this House, sit in the gallery and listen to the speeches on this debate, they would leave with no conclusion other than the fact that Conservatives are against this bill. However, when it comes time to vote for it, they will vote in favour of it, all of them. I personally think that is because they have done the political calculation on it and know there is absolutely no way they can afford to vote against it because it would be so detrimental to them politically.

Can the member explain to the House why Conservative after Conservative gets up to speak, including the member, to talk negatively about the bill but then they will ultimately vote in favour of it?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for respecting me on this side.

This whole process has been very frustrating for me. I am the mother of four children. I have a 10-year-old, a seven-year-old, a three-year-old and a one-year-old. I have had two of those children while elected to office. I know the real struggles of trying to find child care. My husband and I have really had to balance, and we know that it literally takes a village.

It is so frustrating to me that when we have parents and child care providers coming to committee explaining and pouring their heart out about the real struggles that parents are dealing with, we have partisan games.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Then vote against it.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, honestly, we should just listen to the parents whom this model does not work for. It does not work for them, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals just want to play partisan games instead of actually making it inclusive for everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not know if the parliamentary secretary was thinking out loud, but he had the opportunity to ask a question. I do not think he wanted to heckle, but if he did, he knows that he should not be doing that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect everyone's views in this place. We all bring stories. I am the father of three daughters. My eldest twins were born in 2012, before I was elected, so my wife and I are also familiar with the struggles of raising children and trying to find care.

The situation the member described is one that has existed for many of my constituents before we had child care agreements, before Bill C-35 even came into being. I do not see how those particular issues could not be helped by the bill. It is trying to enshrine a payment system, a funding system, that is trying to address the very issues that she raised as concerns in her speech and that are affecting constituents right across this country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is a five-year limit with the agreements, so this is not forever. That is one thing to make note of.

Bill C-35 does not create new spaces. Sure, there are parents who already have their kids in a child care centre or use whatever model is accepted by their province and works for them. However, if they are not already in there, too bad, so sad; they are still on a wait-list.

The Conservatives moved a motion at committee to recognize labour, as we need a labour strategy. The NDP voted against it, so I would ask the member why his party voted against the labour force strategy for child care educators.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really admire my colleague from Lloydminster, who sits beside me. I am a father of four. We brought in the universal child care benefit back in the Harper days.

I was listening across the way to the disinformation that we do not care about child care on this side. We absolutely do. We ran on it.

It was obvious from the member's speech that the Conservatives care about child care, but I think for the audience watching out there, can my colleague from Saskatchewan explain why the Conservatives do care about child care?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member asked me that question. I got involved in politics because the current Prime Minister's 2015 platform negatively harmed my family in how we wanted to raise our children.

Absolutely the Conservatives care about families. We care about children and we care about parental choice.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to have the opportunity to once again speak to this bill.

I think I can sum it up with a question I was asked following the last time we spoke about this bill, at report stage. It was a question that came from a Liberal member. His question was very simple. He asked, “Why do Conservatives hate child care so much?” I was dumbfounded, because I really thought perhaps he missed my speech, although he was sitting in the chamber for it. I thought, “Oh my gosh, somehow there is an entire void here.”

I want to continue with all of the great work that my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster talked about, because she is on the front lines of this, not only being a member of the HUMA committee, but also being a mother, just like so many other individuals here who have young children and who need care for their children.

Yesterday I was reading the Oxfam report, which looks at care in Canada. I wanted to look at both unpaid care and paid care. One of the biggest things it talked about was that, yes, we have this new child care program and all of the benefits, but the problem is that at the end of the day, we are losing people in this sector. I remember this is exactly what the member for Peterborough—Kawartha talked about. The fact is that we cannot retain people in this sector for a good length of time.

I talked about seeing $22 an hour in Langley, B.C., just five years ago. That is not keeping people in this sector. Let us be honest. The cost of living is making it so that the people who have chosen to do these jobs, which at one time may have seemed lower income, are not being respected for their great work, and now they cannot afford to do something that they are passionate about and love to do.

What I want to do today is read some articles into the record, because the member for Peterborough—Kawartha said that every single day, we are seeing a brand new article on this from the media. What I did when I was thinking about this speech is I popped “child care in Canada” into a search, and it populated all of these stories. It does not matter what part of the country we are from, whether it is Nunavut, for which I will have a media mention, or other parts of the country. They are all talking about the same things: child care spots and labour. Sometimes the labour issues create the spot issues and vice versa.

When the government came forward with the bill, I recall the minister saying that they wanted to enshrine this in legislation because of the Conservatives. We know it was all about political intentions; it really was not to do with children. It is because of those political intentions that they wanted to enshrine it into law, but they did not take the time to do the work.

A lot of the time when we are playing political games, we do not look at the consequences of our mistakes, so when we try to move amendments in committee, we are too busy trying to play partisan games. Then simple things like a labour force strategy are denied because of the individual who has put it forward. It is really common in the House that if we do not like the individual who sponsors something, we are not going to support it. That is what we see in the House of Commons.

As I indicated, I have a number of articles that I would like to read, because this is exactly what we talked about. These articles were not written by Conservatives. They were written by journalists, people who are going around and reporting on what is happening in Canada. Looking at where some of the articles are coming from, these are not Conservative journalists but people who are looking on the ground and addressing these issues.

The first article I want to bring forward was published on May 8 and written by Natasha O'Neill, a writer with CTV. I will read it into the record:

A new report details a lack of child-care spaces is at a crisis level in Canada and why it has worsened.

The report, published in April 2023 by the non-profit Childcare Resources and Research Unit, shows just one spot in a child-care setting was available for 29 per cent of children who need it.

Holy schnikes, that is just horrific. That is one spot for 29% of children.

“I think one of the things that's driving the shortage of licensed spaces is that child care has been in the news a lot.” Morna Ballantyne, who is an advocate, said that. Anyone who has been working on this can talk to her. She has talked about the fact that, yes, there is a huge demand, but what we see is that the demand is not keeping up with what the government has put in place.

Why are the Conservatives supporting this bill? As we said, we are supporting it because it is about child care. However, we have seen this being used as a political wedge each and every time.

That is why all I have ever heard is that Conservatives are voting against this. I am not voting against children. I am voting for families. I am voting for women so that they can go to work, members of the families can go to work and men can go to work. Everybody in that family unit can ensure that their child has a place. Many times, I speak as a women's advocate. I think it is because, at 8:59 a.m., when a person is trying to get off the road to go into work and their child is sick and they need to find that last minute child care, because they are trying to balance getting to work and having that job and keeping their children safe and cared for, who are they going to call? I say thanks to my mom, by the way, for all those times. She is always available for those 8:59 phone call moments.

As I indicated, Ballantyne had said that the crisis is not new. She said, “Particularly getting access to licensed child care [is a problem].... Governments for decades now have essentially relied on individuals, organizations, whether they be for profit or not for profit, to set up child-care centres.”

That is the reality of it. I think we have to ask why they do that. That is because we are in Canada. We cannot look at this incredible nation we have from coast to coast and not look at the diversity, the diversity of communities and population.

I spoke to my friend from Saskatoon. To get from one edge of his riding to the other is 20 minutes. I can say that, for some people who are in Toronto, that might be five minutes, maybe walking, definitely not by car. That would be 20.

In some of our ridings, it is eight hours from door to door, to get from one end to the other. To put that into perspective, we can think about what that looks like when it comes to populations in child care and how one can find something that is going to be successful.

That is why families, businesses and many women have come up with business plans and business models, so that they can support their community. It does not have to look like this or that, but they are filling in that gap. That is why we are cautiously supporting this. We know that there are still gaps, and these gaps have to be filled by other things.

I want to turn to another piece, because I found this one to be really interesting. This was written by Mike Crawley on CBC. It was posted on March 14, 2023, and it gives the following subheading: “Average ECE leaves sector after 3 years [indicates the] regulator”. According to this article: “Becoming a registered ECE,” which is an early childhood educator, “requires at least two years of post-secondary education, with training in child development. However, compensation has lagged behind that of other sectors that also require a post-secondary diploma because the work of child care is not valued, according to advocates. ‘We are not babysitters,’ said Maxine Chodorowicz, a registered ECE and supervisor of child care at the West End YMCA in Toronto.”

I worked on a child care board back in the nineties and early 2000s. I think this goes back to the fact that, at one time, we saw people who were ECEs making rates that, at $15 and $16, although low, could still pay the bills. Now, we are talking about the costs of mortgages, interest rates and everything else, as well as the cost of living and carbon tax. When we add all these things together, that $16 an hour may have been okay at one time; now, it is so far from it. That $22 an hour in Langley, B.C., does not cut it anymore.

After eight years under the government, life has gotten so unfriendly to Canadian families, because the cost of living just continues to explode. It does not matter if we are buying something at the grocery store or anything that we touch. There has been a huge increase in cost because of the Liberal government and its horrific policies, which continue to affect Canadians.

I want to say one last thing; this was also something that I found in the newspaper. It is a headline that says, “Ontario could be short 8,500 ECEs [by 2026]”.

We have a problem here. If we do not have a labour strategy, if we are not going to figure out how we are going to do this together, we are not going to impact the children's lives that the government is trying to impact. We are not going to make it easier for families.

I want to say we can do better. Let us start listening and working together.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from across the way and I always have very meaningful conversations when it comes to women's issues, families and children. I always value what she has to add to the discussion, including tonight. However, let us be realistic. The demand for child care spaces existed far before. It was already there. Frankly, tax credits do not build spaces, and they do not build a workforce. The former Conservative government ripped up agreements. That happened previously under the Stephen Harper government from when Minister Dryden did them.

We have to build the system. This legislation is about enshrining those values to make sure that there are federal dollars and a federal commitment to continuing to build that system. Does she not value that?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say happy 20th birthday to my son, Christian Vecchio. He is out there today. The reason I say this is that his older brother is probably still on that wait-list I put him on in 1994.

That is the concern that we have here. During previous Liberal governments under Chrétien and under Martin, all these different things were promised continually, time and time again. Dakota never got into that child care, and now he is 29 years old. It just continued to exist.

The government has been here for multiple years, eight years, and it is getting worse.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot wait for interpretation to email my colleague for the spelling of “schnikes”.

I appreciated that she talked about the conditions of work for early childhood educators. My mum was an early childhood educator, and my sister-in-law is an early childhood educator. We do not pay early childhood educators nearly enough. It is not only that the cost of living has gone up but also that we did not pay early childhood educators enough 10 years ago, and we still do not.

There is language in the bill, thanks to an NDP amendment, that references the conditions of work as being essential to ensuring the success of this program. Could the member help me understand if there are other ways that this bill could be improved to ensure that early childhood educators are properly compensated for the important role that they play?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that, because I recall looking at agreements back in the nineties. At the time, the city of St. Thomas was being compared to the city of Woodstock. We were looking at the cost of living and trying to work out what the rates should be.

When we want to talk about a labour strategy, with all due respect, I know that there was an amendment put in there. I have heard from my colleagues. We have talked about a labour strategy amendment that was denied by the government, the NDP and everybody else.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on something. We were both elected in 2015. There are partisan games played around this place when good ideas are presented. It should not matter whether they come from the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives or the Greens if ideas benefit Canadian families. Some of the amendments that we proposed at committee were rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition.

Should it matter who proposes amendments to make legislation better, if Canadian families benefit?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my colleague, it has been wonderful working here with him for almost eight years, with all the things that we have seen. When we talk about partisan games, this is exactly what we see. We have seen good things being brought in by other parties, specifically, the party that I am proud to be a member of, the Conservative Party. Because we are Conservatives, it is bottom line; people come up to me saying I must be a Liberal. No one owns being in one party or another. The Conservative women have great ideas, and we know that we can work collaboratively with everybody so that we can get this going and work for Canadians.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from York Centre.

It is always a pleasure and privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in the wonderful riding of Brampton East. I want to thank the hon. members who have spoken before me to this very important bill, Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act. Their messages, stories and questions have proven that Bill C-35 would have lasting beneficial impacts across our country. This is a bill that would improve the lives of Canadians, their children and future generations to come.

I would like to stop and thank my wife, my mother-in-law and my mom for helping to take care of my two daughters so that I can be here today. I am lucky to have that family support, but there are many in my riding who do not have that support and are utilizing our $10-a-day child care strategy to save money and enrol their children in child care. When I speak to constituents in my riding, I hear stories first-hand, but I also hear about the added stress they have to endure just to find affordable, accessible and quality child care. I can hear the frustration in their voices. I can also hear that they share a common goal, which is being able to provide for their children and give their children the best start in life. This is a straightforward and simple goal that every parent has, but when one's entire paycheque is going towards child care fees, that goal can start to become out of reach. Our government has a plan in place to help parents give their children a better start in life; this is a plan to nurture their minds and help elevate them to their fullest potential.

Let me tell members about my constituents Matthew and Jennifer, both of whom are full-time nurses. They welcomed their first child, Sebastian, into the world in 2021. When the time came to consider child care options for Sebastian, they quickly learned that their options, like those of many parents, were very limited or beyond their means. Paying for child care meant that Matthew and Jennifer's goal of home ownership would have to be put on hold, but not anymore. With our $10-a-day child care strategy, families in Brampton East who used to pay upwards of $1,300 a month per child are now paying roughly $700 a month. Being able to save families like this one over $5,000 a year is very important because it helps with the cost of living and helps them to buy groceries or put money toward housing.

Another constituent I spoke with remembers, as a child, seeing one parent in the morning and one at night every day because they worked opposite shifts to be able to save money versus spending it on child care. She mentioned that this would sometimes come up in conversations when she was older, and her parents even said that they would not see each other until the weekends; that was very tough on her upbringing. This constituent told me about the leaps and hurdles her parents had to navigate through, back in the early 2000s, just so she was cared for. The only opportunities she had to participate in organized early learning were through free programs that were offered by the local high school, which facilitated ECEs as co-op students. This is another reason why having access to affordable, high-quality and inclusive child care is vital.

One of the guiding principles of Bill C-35 is that it would enable families to have access to child care. Parents would not have to work opposite shifts to make sure one of them is home, and they would not have to initiate the difficult conversation of considering putting one of their careers on hold because the cost of child care is too high or inaccessible.

As I mentioned before, within its guiding principles, Bill C-35 encapsulates that all Canadians have access to quality, affordable and inclusive child care. This is a lasting commitment built on a collaborative framework approach with provinces and territories across Canada. Within this commitment, the Government of Canada recognizes that first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by programs that are culturally appropriate and led by local communities. This recognition extends to our neighbours in Quebec, who have successfully led the way for over two decades, with the development and implementation of their provincial child care plan. Our government will continue to learn from Quebec's system to improve our Canada-wide child care system. Our government is grateful to be able to reference Quebec's example of how to lead a government-funded child care program successfully.

I also want to highlight some of the impacts that Bill C-35 would have on the Canadian economy. While many people, including me, consider Bill C-35 to be smart social policy, it is also policy that makes good economic sense. When we invest one dollar into early learning and child care, the broader economy will see roughly two dollars in return. This could help raise our real GDP by over 1% in the coming years. Some of my hon. colleagues may have already mentioned these numbers, but they are worth repeating.

The $27-billion investment made through Bill C-35 over a period of five years will help boost our economy, provide real and beneficial growth and help parents, especially women, enter or re-enter the labour force, a sector that we all know is experiencing shortages throughout various occupations and fields within Canada. Empowering women who want to enter the workforce and stay is good social and economic policy that helps eliminate gender inequality. Women, who statistically are more likely to take on the duties as the primary caregivers, will no longer have to choose or bear the burden of choosing between a career and caring for their children. Bill C-35 is empowering women to have the benefit of a choice, without being forced into making one.

As the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development so powerfully put, Canada has the potential to gain an additional 200,000 workers entering into the workforce, should this trend have the same trajectory of involvement that Quebec experienced when it implemented its child care program roughly 25 years ago. Our government is adding additional options and opportunities for parents to make smart financial decisions and not limit their aspirations of career advancement.

When I speak with constituents at the doors, child care has always been a recurring topic that has come up from time to time. Even before parents have welcomed their new baby into the world, they are already researching various child care options to see if centres have space available, or how long the wait-lists are to get in, and calculating costs to figure out if they can afford it. Hon. members in this House have attested to their own experiences when trying to find child care for their little ones and how stressful this process can be.

Constituents in Brampton East are excited to hear about our government's agreements in place with our provincial and territorial partners to increase the number of child care spaces by over 250,000 in the next five years. Constituents are relieved to hear that active steps have been taken toward meeting this target: Roughly over 50,000 spaces are already committed to being built. Significant progress is being made, and the passing of Bill C-35 would mean that none of this progress would be lost or reversed. This legislation is meant to be multi-generational and will continue to operate and improve via the oversight mechanisms put in place to ensure accountability, transparency and sustainability.

Reporting on our government's progress has always been a key factor with Bill C-35, because transparency and accountability are critical components when analyzing the need for improvement and sustainability. The National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care comprises 16 individual experts who offer their invaluable knowledge and expertise within their respective fields.

The importance of having members who reflect the diversity of Canada is a key consideration, because this legislation will help all Canadians, no matter their background or beliefs. Having this third party expert advice creates a forum to help address the challenges that are currently being faced within the early learning and child care sector. We are also held accountable by our partners, and Canadians as a whole, to get this right. The annual reports to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development will help our government enhance its efforts.

Bill C-35 is multi-generational. It is a long-term commitment to Canadians, and it gives families the assurances they need, knowing that their children, grandchildren and future generations will be able to enjoy the same benefits as children today. This is another reason why having the proper oversight and mechanisms in place that provide transparency and accountability is so crucial to Canadians.

When this bill passes, and I have every hope that it will, I can provide constituents and their families the comfort of knowing that this legislation cannot simply be cancelled or taken away. In those same conversations, I can reassure parents that more spaces are being added to help shorten wait-lists. I can also tell them that Bill C-35 will bring a sense of financial security through savings of thousands of dollars a year for their families to help with affordability.

Parents are already seeing the results of a Canada-wide system with significantly reduced fees across provinces and territories. These reductions are in line with our goal of achieving an average of $10-a-day licensed child care by March 2026.

As I conclude today, this legislation respects the notion that child care is not a luxury, but a necessity. The bill is a necessity that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction due to its collaborative approach with a shared commitment to strengthening and protecting this Canada-wide system for future generations. I trust that the hon. members of this House will do same to continue to support women, children and families through this legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the point about certainty for the long term.

The Liberal government has run up more debt in its period of office than the country has in its entire history up to that point, and is continuing to fund these and other promised expansions of social spending through deficit spending. The fiscal context actually leaves a lot of Canadians uncertain that any of these kinds of programs would be there in the future, not because of political debates or the positions of any particular individuals but because of the fact that the Liberal government is making promises on the basis of deficit spending, promises that would in fact continue to cost more. This is in a context, by the way, where many Canadians still do not have child care.

I wonder how the member could justify his claim that this is providing multi-generational certainty, when in a substantive sense these programs are not funded?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is about certainty. I would ask the member opposite what Conservatives would place in this bill to ensure that there is certainty?

Roughly two years, that same party was stepping up their campaign pledges to cancel this very program. They stepped up to say that we do not need to be there for families. I remember when Ken Dryden, our member in a previous government, brought up a plan, and the Conservatives were the ones who stepped up and cancelled it.

We need to ensure that families are given that certainty. It would not be fair to future generations should the Conservatives decide to cut this program in the future.